Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd.

373 ITR 661Supreme Court of India2015#1882 most cited

What is Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd. authority for?

Reopening of assessment beyond four years under Section 147 requires strict satisfaction of conditions precedent, including fresh tangible material, and cannot be based on a mere change of opinion from the original assessment. Further, debatable or interpretational issues cannot be adjusted during processing under Section 143(1).

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development · Zuari Estate Development · reassessment beyond four years · Section 147 first proviso · change of opinion · tangible material for reopening · Section 143(1) processing scope · debatable interpretational issues 143(1)(a) · Kelvinator principle · charitable trusts Section 11

Also reported as

63 Taxmann.com 177236 Taxmann 1

Sections most often in play

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)(ii)Section 154Section 80G

Issues it is cited on

first proviso to section 147within four yearsfresh tangible materialsection 55kelvinatorindexed cost of acquisitionlive linkregular assessmentdate of transferchange of opiniontangible materialsection 143(1)(a)

Judgments citing Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development and Investment Co. Ltd.

Sara Services & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the results appeal of the assessee is partly disallowed on ground no

ITA 406/DEL/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Sri C.M.Garg, Jm & Sri L.P.Sahu, Am Ita No. 406,407/Del./2010 Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Asstt. Year : 2003-04

For Appellant: Sri O.P. Sapra, Sri Sandeep Sapara, Adv. , ShriFor Respondent: Sri Sujit kumar, Sr. DR & Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT,DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 80H

…At this juncture, ITA No. 406, 207/Del/2010 Sara Services & Engs. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT it is necessary and relevant to consider the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT vs. Juari State Development and Investment Company Ltd. reported as 373 ITR 661 (SC) wherein their lordship speaking for the Apex court of India allowing the appeal of the revenue held the main issue involved in the case had not been addressed by the Hon’ble High Court and the asessee’s return was accepted u/s 143(1) of the Act and there was no question of “change of opinion” inasmuch as while accepting the return, no opinio…